Soaking E Series

[Vol]

^^ Thanks.

[Tim Kindler]

E98s tend to flake sometimes. Check out about 3 of them on ebay in the BINs and you will see what I mean. Once they start flaking and peeling, they don't stop, even in a slab. They get worse and worse. My theory is that soaking on purpose or just getting wet somehow over the years accidently has caused these E98s to end up like this. Of course, I have never tried it myself on any E98s, so I'm not exactly sure that my theory is correct. Personally, I think it is wrong to alter a card in any way and to me soaking is altering. Now, don't get me wrong, if you want to do it for your personal benefit, do whatever you want with your card. I , myself, have never tried it because I'm afraid I would screw something up and ruin one of my cards!

Tim Kindler
E98 Guy

[Rob D.]

Quan and Tim,

Thank you for the insights that all E cards might not be alike when it comes to how they react to soaking.

[marcdelpercio]

Personally, I think it is wrong to alter a card in any way and to me soaking is altering.

Tim (and others who think that soaking is altering),
Would you consider it an alteration when the dirt/glue/paste was originally added to the card? If so, all of these soaked cards are already altered so you really are not changing anything...merely making a soiled altered card into a less soiled altered card. If not, then please explain what you feel constitues an alteration.

I totally agree with you, by the way, about E98s. Especially on those that have begun flaking in any way, soaking can be disaterous. I would put E94s and E97s in this category as well.

[FrankWakefield]

For clarity, I'm going to go up there and edit my post of this morning, to specify that E93's and E95's soak well. I didn't say all E cards do, but maybe someone unknowingly thought so. Cracker Jack cards soak well, by the way. But since the original poster was asking about E93s and E95s, that was what I was answering about.

[sb1]

The reason for various E issues flaking when soaked has to do with the clay coated paper that was used, the clay coating content varied from the suppliers to the different printers and thus some react differently than others. If you were to lithograph directly on cardboard stock you would have had a severe case of ink bleeding, the clay coated paper accepted the ink and held it quite nicely.

Regardless of whether you approve or dissaprove of this issue, many of the nicer N,T and E cards that exist today were saved in scrapbooks with simple flour paste and hence soaked out. This causes no alteration nor intent to deceive. None of this "stretches" the card, that is an entirely different ploy used by card doctors to soak, press roll and trim a card.(a story for another thread).

The grading companies do not or cannot in many instances detect this simple soaking and do not deduct for it, as they do not deem it an "alteration". It is a simple fact of collecting vintage cards.

[FrankWakefield]

Bravo, sb1 !!!

[chaddurbin]

it's alteration to me if it's an act of deceipt. glue/paste added onto card for display purposes on notebooks/covers way back was simple hobby fun. trying to take it off now or erasing serves no purpose other than making card look better/enhance value.

both for/against have their reasons and justifications. up to you where you want to draw the line...

[FrankWakefield]

Might be deceit.


Hmmmm.... if a card has paste and scrapbook remnants on the back, then it should be left on there. Otherwise, to remove it, would result in an 'altered' card, which would then be worth less. So the card is left with stuff on the back so it will be worth more. Now I understand.


Again, I really think that most of the old slabbed cards in great condition have corners that have survived thanks to being scrapbooked, then soaked, and eventually slabbed. Collectors would buy scrapbooks, tear out the pages, and soak the pages in a bathtub overnight. Then separate out the cards from the pages in the morning.

I do understand that I see nothing wrong with a mere soaking. And that some think it is a travesty.

[Leon]

SB1 nailed it. If you collect vintage cards you probably have some that have been soaked. Sometimes when soaking a card a little water stain will be left and sometimes not. IF the soaking can be detected by a water stain, the TPGs will deduct for it as they would a smudge or dirt, in my experience. Most times they can't tell and therefore won't deduct. It doesn't bother me to own, buy or sell cards that have had something erased or have been soaked. I feel the same way about anything that can be taken off of a card that wasn't there from date of mfg, and is taken off with water and/or an eraser (that is the extent of my leniency). Everybody has their own view but I don't personally think these previous things constitute "alterations", in the trimming, bleaching, stretching sense of the word. We have had good discussions as Rob linked to. And btw, power erasing is in fact taking off layer(s) of paper, so to me that is altering in a bad way.

[HRBAKER]

Ask yourself a couple of questions. When buying a card, if it had been soaked would you want to know. And if when selling a card, if you have soaked it are you going to volunteer that information to the buyer. If you answer yes to the first and no to the second then I think you think soaking is altering a card.

[E93]

bye

[tbob]

The original post dealt with E93s and E95s and I believe they can be soaked without problems, although I never have done it myself. The E94s and E98s, as stated, are a whole different kettle of fish. I have purchased a few of these caramel cards in apparent vgex or ex condition which have "exploded" upon removal from the the holders. The top and right hand top corners of the E98s, for some reason, appear most susceptible to devastating paper loss, and thus gnashing of teeth. I always felt that the cards must have been soaked or fooled around with as the damage is unlike any other I have ever seen in any caramel cards.